On October 4, 2014, when President Barak Obama made his famous speech about U.S. strategy to counter ISIS’s meteoric rise and expansion, he repeated one phrase that caught the attention of many, within and without the United States. He said: “Our objective is clear: We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL.”

With this catchy phrase, President Obama was probably trying to erase in a hurry the terrible impression left by his earlier comment that “we don’t have a strategy yet.”

The catchphrase caught the attention of observers and analysts around the world. Attempts were made to decipher the deeper meaning behind it. That’s commendable, but it appears that there was nothing more meaningful behind the phrase. It reflected (possibly still reflects) America’s strategic perspective of the best way to deal with the ISIS threat, namely: we are going to take our time, chip away at ISIS gradually, and ultimately we will destroy it.

Fair enough, but this is a bad strategy. It’s bad primarily because it gives ISIS plenty of breathing space to continue operating, to cause enormous pain and suffering right now. Even worse, it allows ISIS to sow the seeds of quite predictable future tragedies by being allowed to continue orchestrating multiple “victory” narratives, and consequently, to continue drawing many vulnerable, impressionable, and ultimately miserable but also dangerous youngsters from across the world.

Not a week goes by without all of us being bombarded by news items that frame ISIS’s narrative as a successful, enterprising, out-of-the-box, West-challenging organization. Nearly every move they take is used by them (and amplified by event-hungry Western media organizations) to poke more than a finger at the “crusaders” and tell them a story that carries at its tip the message: we’re coming to get you.

ISIS’s killers could have executed the 21 Coptic Egyptians anywhere in the vast landmass of Libya; they chose, instead, the seashore of the Mediterranean Sea, facing tantalizingly nearby Europe (the southern tip of Italy), using their theater of the macabre to further buttress their narrative of expansion and success and to tell their huge audience across the world: “we are expanding, we are on the move, and there’s nothing you can do to stop us. Look, we’re already at Europe’s doorstep!”

The week after the horrific Libya executions, audiences across the world were exposed to news about a new ISIS offensive in Iraq. But when it comes to what the forces opposed to ISIS are doing, we learn that they are planning a “spring offensive” to try to route ISIS from its many hold points in northern and western Iraq. What to do about ISIS in Libya, nobody seems to know.

Back to the impressionable youngsters: as long as ISIS is allowed to continue to produce its victory pictures without a serious challenge, in deed and narrative, these youngsters will continue making their way to ISIS territory, buoyed by images of success and victory. By the time many of them realize the bitter reality – as opposed to that painted by ISIS’s supremely talented public relations architects – it is going to be too late for many of them, for their families, communities and countries of origin.

This is why the word “degrade” should be removed from the strategic philosophy of those arrayed against ISIS. If they think that this is an organization, a movement, a message that needs destroying, they should destroy it; they should not allow it a moment more breathing time than is absolutely necessary. Every such moment is detrimental to vulnerable young multitudes and all of us by extension. To them, President Obama and the anti-ISIS coalition bear no less responsibility than those directly impacted by ISIS in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa.

Dr. Doron Pely is the Executive Director of the Sulha Research Center in Israel. Doron studies and teaches Muslim customary conflict and conflict management practices. His experience combines military (Lieutenant), police intelligence (field and analysis), business intelligence, executive duties, and academic and field research. Doron earned his PhD in Middle East Studies from King’s College, London.

]]>http://securitydebrief.com/2015/02/23/dont-degrade-isis-destroy-it/feed/0The Constitution is an Asset in Fighting Crime, Terrorismhttp://securitydebrief.com/2015/02/20/the-constitution-is-an-asset-in-fighting-crime-terrorism/
http://securitydebrief.com/2015/02/20/the-constitution-is-an-asset-in-fighting-crime-terrorism/#commentsFri, 20 Feb 2015 13:04:30 +0000http://securitydebrief.com/?p=15495One of the most interesting, revealing and important discussions I have ever had occurred in 1992 on a beach at the Four Seasons in Maui. I had been invited there as part of the Young Leaders Program of the Atlantic Council of the United States and was meeting with a few dozen other under 40’s from around the world.

One day, on that beach, I was talking to a fellow named Jaroslaw Guzy. Jaroslaw had been a leader in the student arm of the Solidarity movement in Poland and had spent some time in prison during the martial law years. The “authorities” had come for Jaroslaw in the night, taken him away and locked him up.

Having been a Soviet Studies major in college in the 1970s, I asked a question I had always wanted to ask someone like him. I knew that Soviet-style constitutions included language about freedom of speech, expression and so on – most of the typical Bill of Rights issues. So I asked him about that fact and about how it was they offered no protection (beyond the lack of a moral compass in the leadership).

He pointed out that, unlike the U.S. Constitution, the constitutions in those countries offered absolutely no protection against things like unreasonable search and seizure. There was no right to representation, jury trial, due process, self-incrimination or any of those things. I came to understand that day, in that most unlikely of places, with the most unlikely of people, that the portions of the U.S. Constitution offering those protections are the most important pieces of the U.S. Constitution. That is why I have always cringed when I hear some people call those rights “criminals rights.” They are my rights. And yours.

I thought of that conversation while reading an important new book, Red Notice, by Bill Browder. If you read one book this year, read this one. Browder was the largest investor in Russia, until he began to understand how the leadership kleptocracy was robbing the country blind and tried to do something about it. His Russian tax attorney, Sergei Magnitsky, an idealistic young man who came of age in post-communist Russia, was arrested, tortured and killed by the country he loved, a country he was confident operated under a rule of law and could never do such a thing. And it was done to him simply because he had helped uncover a massive tax fraud.

Most of the articles about Red Notice are about Browder and Putin and the future of Russia. But it is also a cautionary tale about what happens when the basic protections we take for granted are eroded or non-existent. The book is filled with stories of Browder and his people working through channels, doing what the law directed them to do. And the result was tragic.

Oftentimes when we hear about particularly heinous crimes, we want to start peeling those protections away; for those people, the ones who commit these crimes. It may feel good and may seem like a sensible thought, but we should remember that those protections are there to be applied to all of us, and not selectively. And what happened to people like Jaroslaw Guzy and Sergei Magnitsky can happen to anyone when those protections are stripped away. After all, neither Guzy nor Magnitsky did anything wrong.

]]>http://securitydebrief.com/2015/02/20/the-constitution-is-an-asset-in-fighting-crime-terrorism/feed/0Countering the ISIS Narrative…With Cartoonshttp://securitydebrief.com/2015/01/20/countering-the-isis-narrative-with-cartoons/
http://securitydebrief.com/2015/01/20/countering-the-isis-narrative-with-cartoons/#commentsTue, 20 Jan 2015 13:59:28 +0000http://securitydebrief.com/?p=15429The fight against the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) is, in part, a war of ideas. ISIS pushes a radical ideology that claims to justify murder, rape and all the atrocities the terrorist group has visited on the Iraqi and Syrian people, as well as hostages from other countries. In the United States, it is paramount that we counter this narrative, providing a clear, compelling alternative to ISIS’ hateful, vicious message.

As a part of that effort, fellow Security Debrief contributor Erroll Southers and I have been working on a Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) project in Minneapolis, Minn., speaking with a Somali-American community that terrorist recruiters have targeted for years. A DHS Science & Technology Directorate-sponsored project through the National Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE) at the University of Southern California (USC), the project is looking at community-driven programs that may be effective in deterring terrorist recruitment. One program we are investigating is Average Mohamed, an innovative project that uses cartoons to counter the extremist messages directed at young people. The project is run by Mohamed Ahmed, a resident of Minneapolis. (Security Debrief contributor Beverly Lwenya also previously wrote about this project.)

Ahmed and Southers spoke on CNN’s New Day, discussing the threats to the Somali-American community and how projects like Average Mohamed can make a difference. The project is also covered in a recent article (excerpted below) from USC’s Sol Price School of Public Policy.

After a series of terror attacks, the most recent being the attack in Paris on the offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine, law enforcement and military personnel are tracking down terrorist cells. But in Minneapolis, one man is fighting extremist groups with cartoons.

Groups like the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) are using extremist narratives to lure young, impressionable people to join their causes and engage in violence. Countering their messages requires simple, direct ways of offering alternative narratives. Average Mohamed is a grassroots effort founded and driven by Minneapolis resident Mohamed Ahmed.

“It takes an idea to defeat an idea,” said Ahmed. “Extremist ideology must be competed against. It only takes an average man to radicalize and recruit vulnerable young people, and it only takes an average man to offer a different, peaceful narrative. Average Mohamed is the answer to the ongoing efforts to mislead our children.”

]]>http://securitydebrief.com/2015/01/20/countering-the-isis-narrative-with-cartoons/feed/0Islam and the West – Where Do We Go From Here?http://securitydebrief.com/2015/01/16/islam-and-the-west-where-do-we-go-from-here/
http://securitydebrief.com/2015/01/16/islam-and-the-west-where-do-we-go-from-here/#commentsFri, 16 Jan 2015 13:55:20 +0000http://securitydebrief.com/?p=15419By Dr. Doron Pely

In the wake of the recent wave of Islamists-led terror attacks around the world – most recently in France – there is a palpable sense of despair amongst Western experts and citizens who are all asking: “Where do we go from here in our relations with Islam?”

This is not a new question, but the despair has deepened and the attacks have intensified. It seems that we are running out of options, and the only way forward is outright conflict – a war of civilizations. Before we cross that Sambation, however, here is a proposal that may – in time – show some promise and positive progress.

To begin with, all involved must realize that within itself, Islam has not yet developed a way to differentiate clearly between “normal,” life-loving and life-seeking Muslims (the overwhelming majority) and Islamists (a tiny but very powerful minority). Such a clear differentiation is essential if Muslims themselves are to be able to make a choice about how they wish to live their lives. Islam is currently held hostage by its Islamist wing; it allows itself to be cowed by the ever-present threat of Islamist violence.

Even devout Muslim/Arab leaders are starting to figure this out. In a recent speech at Al Azhar University in Cairo, one of Islam’s core theological bastions, Egyptian president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi said: “Islam has become the enemy of the world. It is inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire Islamic world to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!”

Having raised a point that is rarely discussed this way in the Muslim world, President el-Sisi went on to provide some clear analysis, calling for a “religious revolution” and pointing a finger at those who, in his opinion, are primarily charged with changing this situation. He said: “Is it possible that 1.6 billion Muslims should want to kill the rest of the world’s 7 billion inhabitants so that they themselves may live? Impossible. I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You imams are responsible before Allah. The entire world is waiting for you. The entire world is waiting for your word because the Islamic world is being torn, it is being destroyed, and it is being lost. And it is being lost by our own hands.”

Indeed, until and unless Islam shakes itself free from the inside, until communities and leadership gather up the courage – and courage is definitely needed – to stand up to the Islamists, nothing good will happen – for Muslims or the rest of the world.

If Muslim leaders are starting to look the issue straight on, it is time for leaders in the West, like French President Francois Hollande, to stop pretending that such terror attacks “have nothing to do with the Muslim religion.” Islamist terror is a Muslim problem, as well as a global problem, and it is very much up to Muslims – together with the rest of the world – to work hard to present a solution. Political correctness in this case may create acceptable sound bites, but it will not create the climate required to start dealing with the very real issues that trouble and will continue to trouble mixed-faith communities – effectively the whole of the Western world.

So what should be done?

In the West, a major effort is required to develop (together with Muslim communities in each local) programs that create the space and the opportunity for Muslim silent majorities to express themselves much more forcefully – essentially posit a counter-narrative of “sane” Islam that will challenge the narrative of militant Islamists.

Muslim constituencies around the world – East and West – should demand their leadership put all their moral, theological, and legal weight on the side of a “sane” Islam – one that is about peace and tolerance. This should be done in clear language without “ifs” or “buts.” Silence is also no longer an option. To remain silent is to align oneself with the Islamists.

To facilitate such changes, Christian and Muslim leaderships around the world must establish programs that will create external and internal incentives for communities to take a position, provide secure channels of expression for those willing to take the first steps (those will be the most difficult), and encourage (indeed insist) on the maintenance of an ongoing internal dialogue within Muslim communities. National/state/local leaderships (Christian mostly) should start an intensive dialogue with Muslim communities, invite them to work together to create an active, visible, even aggressive “sane” alternative to segregation and isolation. Everyone’s lives depend on it.

Alongside this proposed mass movement, there should start a robust integration program of Muslims throughout the Western world. Such programs must not be based on multi-kulti premises but on the creation of “local” versions of co-existence, variants that work for both the majority and minority communities. These should be monitored and modified consistently to ensure that Muslims integrate into their new environments.

For example, alongside a concerted effort to integrate Muslim youth into schools and other educational and recreational activities, parents (Muslim and others), educators, and community leaders must make it their business to communicate, discuss, and rapidly resolve conflicts and other issues that are sure to crop up regularly. Without persistent involvement of all concerned, such programs have no chance of making an impact. Even with significant commitment, progress will be slow and inconsistent. But -the core message should be: “Sane of the World Unite!” and all involved must be acutely aware of the cost of failure.

Those who oppose these programs in illegal ways (e.g., threats, intimidation, physical and psychological bullying) should be pursued and prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law. Within immigrant communities, hard educational work should focus on explaining the meaning of freedom of expression and stressing that it does not include the freedom to behave criminally. Sanctions must include extended prison sentences and decisive deportations where necessary. Muslim communities should be encouraged to police themselves as much as possible and to use traditional sanctions (where they fall within the scope of the formal legal system) to stress zero tolerance for religious intolerance.

None of this will succeed without the direct and deliberate action by Muslim communities and their leaderships around the world. It’s time Muslims who claim that they represent a philosophy of peace and co-existence demonstrate the power of these concepts to themselves and to the world. Parts of this vision appear hard to perceive and implement? Consider the grimmer future awaiting all of us if we don’t act now.

Dr. Doron Pely is the Executive Director of the Sulha Research Center in Israel. Doron studies and teaches Muslim customary conflict and conflict management practices. His experience combines military (Lieutenant), police intelligence (field and analysis), business intelligence, executive duties, and academic and field research. Doron earned his PhD in Middle East Studies from King’s College in London.

]]>http://securitydebrief.com/2015/01/16/islam-and-the-west-where-do-we-go-from-here/feed/0Obama MIA as Leaders Gather in Parishttp://securitydebrief.com/2015/01/12/obama-mia-as-leaders-gather-in-paris/
http://securitydebrief.com/2015/01/12/obama-mia-as-leaders-gather-in-paris/#commentsMon, 12 Jan 2015 13:08:12 +0000http://securitydebrief.com/?p=15402It was a Sunday in Paris. After a heartbreaking week where more than a dozen of its citizens were murdered by Islamic extremists, nearly 4 million people gathered in the City of Lights to stand together and say they would not be afraid. They would stand up together against those who would try to silence and intimidate them.

Joining them in their march was one of the most unique assemblies on the planet. According to CNN, “British Prime Minister David Cameron, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov were among those who attended, along with religious leaders.”

Think about that for a second. Some of the world’s most powerful and recognized leaders scrapped whatever their schedules were, dropped what they were doing and went to Paris to show their support for a country that has truly been shaken by the barbarous acts of last week. That unique assembly of leaders linked their arms and walked together to tell the world that they stood by France and one another against the forces of hate and destruction. It was one of the most photographic moments the world has seen in a decade.

Absent from that photograph and that truly world moment was a recognizable face from the United States. For reasons I don’t understand, President Obama was not there.

Neither was his Secretary of State, John Kerry – a Francophile, if there ever was one at Foggy Bottom. Again according to CNN, Kerry was “attending an entrepreneurship summit with new Prime Minister Narendra Modi – with whom the United States is hoping to develop much closer trade ties.”

Outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder (and a close personal friend of the President) was in Paris attending some security meetings. Somehow his schedule allowed him to join a number of the Sunday morning shows to talk about the Paris attacks and other issues of the day, but he couldn’t find the time to join the arm-linking march.

Was this a photo-op? Without hesitation, it is easy to say, “Yes it was.”

Will that photographic moment change how terrorists and the rest of the world feel about us? Without hesitation, I can say, “No it won’t.”

But here’s the point. The world came together, and we weren’t there. Think about that. The leadership of the world’s leading superpower was missing in action. Everyone else in the world’s leadership could drop what they were doing to be in Paris to show their face, link arms with their allies (as well as adversaries) and publicly declare, “we are together.”

Somehow the Obama Administration could not be bothered.

While the Administration has certainly professed its concerns and condolences through the media, diplomatic channels and in intelligence agencies, there is such a thing as “being there,” and on a Sunday as the world watched, we were not there.

We’re told by a couple of news outlets that the U.S. Ambassador to France, Jane Hartley, was at the rally. It’s great her schedule could permit her to attend, but no one short of the diplomatic community and the other campaign bundlers of the Obama Administration know who Jane Hartley is or what she looks like.

A photo of a Sunday in Paris will forever record who was there and who publicly professed that “we are together.”

What that same photo will forever record is America and its apparently too busy President and foreign policy leadership was missing in action.

After you got everything off your chest, I’d point out that there is a legitimate fear of Ebola. That 70% of the people that contracted it, died. That it is over THERE, and Americans don’t want it over HERE. That we have enough deadly diseases here that you can’t catch (e.g., cancer). Americans don’t want a disease here that you can catch.

I know…it’s very difficult to catch Ebola, but you have to admit, some people missed the hygiene class and all the repeat sessions. If one of them gets Ebola…

I’d point out that you treated people who had Ebola and that a couple of other people who treated people with Ebola contracted the disease.

I’d point out that it’s very unlikely you, like many of the others treating Ebola patients, would get the disease. Thank God.

I’d also say that you’d have to agree that anyone who has treated someone with Ebola or who has been around someone who has treated Ebola has quite a bit of anxiety until the 21-day period has passed. Come on, you have to admit, you are a little worried.

Finally, I’d point out that you are a wonderful person who demonstrated all that is good about America. You went to a place that had a deadly disease outbreak and put yourself at risk. Thank God for people like you!

Now, about this quarantine. I know you think it’s unfair, unconstitutional and maybe even illegal. You may be right. However, as Kenny Rogers sang, “you have to know when to fold them.”

As difficult, unfair and unjust as it may be, your best course of action is to quarantine yourself for 21 days. Think about it, there’s no downside. You will demonstrate loudly that you care about others so deeply, that you are willing to sacrifice your own freedom for a period of time. You will be an angel! Sounds like a movie!

Now, let’s talk about what happens if you resist a quarantine. You may show that you are principled and you will feel good and strong by not letting politicians (or anyone) dictate how you live. That’s good, I guess. However, many people are scared. When they are scared, they get mean. Really mean. They will turn on you and all the good you have done will be forgotten. You will be called a narcissist and other colorful names. The reality is that you probably don’t have Ebola. The perception is that you do until proven otherwise. You will be that nurse who was willing to infect others so she could go ride her bike. The one who cared more about people over there than here. You will be mercilessly “attacked” by the media until a bigger story comes out. If, God forbid, you become symptomatic, Ebola will be the least of your concerns.

Kaci – save yourself now and hold a press conference (by Skype). Tell everyone that you were wrong. Here’s what you should say:

“I spent a lot of time in a place that was full of death and despair. I longed for the time I could come home and enjoy the beauty of this country we sometimes take for granted. I let my desire to get back to normal cloud my judgment. I should have been more sympathetic toward the feelings of others and their fears. With a clear mind, I will self-quarantine in my home. I am truly sorry for any trouble this has caused and hope to come outside after 21 days and breath the sweet air of liberty.”

]]>http://securitydebrief.com/2014/10/30/know-when-to-fold-em-ms-hickox/feed/0Could Ebola be a Tool for Terrorists?http://securitydebrief.com/2014/10/09/could-ebola-be-a-tool-for-terrorists/
http://securitydebrief.com/2014/10/09/could-ebola-be-a-tool-for-terrorists/#commentsThu, 09 Oct 2014 13:18:49 +0000http://securitydebrief.com/?p=15329The first person to be diagnosed with Ebola on U.S. soil has died. Thomas Eric Duncan died on Wednesday. His death and the potency of the outbreak in West Africa highlight the intensity and speed with which biological agents can threaten life and disrupt economies and health infrastructure. In this age of international travel and globalization, a public health threat can jump borders in a matter of hours. The case of Mr. Duncan, coupled with the fact that there is no known cure or vaccine for Ebola, raises questions about the threat from bioterrorism.

Yet, there remain substantial gaps in response time and protocol should someone intentionally release a biological agent. With the Gen 3 upgrade for BioWatch now abandoned due to budget constraints (as well as poor project management and performance), the United States has virtually no coherent system in place to detect a biological attack. The Department of Homeland Security admits that “these tools [BioWatch] alone cannot and do not declare that a biological attack has occurred. Experts must interpret the data and quickly make tough, logical decisions about the reality of the threat.”

The operative word here is quickly. With biological agents, rapid response is essential. A report last year by Amanda Teckman in the Global Policy Journal specifically identifies Ebola as a security threat, stating: “The virus’ ability to be used as a bioweapon is a potential global security threat.”

Teckman was primarily concerned with a threat coming from East Africa due to the history of terrorist attacks there:

“The possibility of a deliberate outbreak in East Africa is a global health and security issue because of Ebola’s contagiousness in a globalized world; the increasing rate at which Ebola is appearing; the fear that could potentially arise from misinformation during an outbreak; and the lack of a vaccine.”

The report goes on to talk about the likelihood of a terrorist group obtaining the virus for weaponization and the possibility of a “suicide-infector,” but it deems the prospect of such an attack possible but improbable. Does this change now that a man infected with the disease managed to travel to the United States?

Another question is, should visitors from countries with deadly viral outbreaks be prevented from entering the United States? Would such a move cause an increase in xenophobia? Travel restrictions to West Africa seem to be working for other African nations, like Kenya. But officials from the World Health Organization stress that those restrictions would be counterproductive for two reasons: 1) Ebola is not an airborne virus; and 2) It is crucial for flights to run medical assistance and humanitarian aid to the three nations struggling most (i.e., Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia).

Yet, given that travelers can avoid detection with a simple dose of ibuprofen while being screened at the airport, or like Mr. Duncun, may be unaware that that they are carrying the virus, it seems like more should be done. As slow as Ebola research has been in the past, apparently, we are lucky to be where we are. The research into a vaccine is solely driven by bioterrorism threat, not public health concerns. This is because since 1976, Ebola has infected 2,361 people and killed 1,548. To put that in perspective, this current epidemic has already claimed more lives than all previous outbreaks during the last 38 years, revealing why health officials, the pharmaceutical industry and government officials seem to be caught off guard.

Airport and border security are now on high alert, and the rest of the world is finally waking up to the enormous volume of aid that is needed in West Africa. Let us hope that this outbreak serves as a reminder that in this period of heightened terrorist activity, we must have all our bases covered.

]]>http://securitydebrief.com/2014/10/09/could-ebola-be-a-tool-for-terrorists/feed/0Countering al-Shabaab Recruitment in Minnesotahttp://securitydebrief.com/2014/09/29/countering-al-shabaab-recruitment-in-minnestoa/
http://securitydebrief.com/2014/09/29/countering-al-shabaab-recruitment-in-minnestoa/#commentsMon, 29 Sep 2014 14:36:52 +0000http://securitydebrief.com/?p=15303In the clandestine recruitment efforts of foreign terrorist groups, al-Shabaab remains a major recruiter of U.S. citizens. A state that is high on the radar for U.S. counterterrorism efforts against the al-Qaeda affiliate is Minnesota, where the Department of Justice recently launched a pilot program to “bring together community representatives, public safety officials, religious leaders, and United States Attorneys to improve local engagement; to counter violent extremism; and – ultimately – to build a broad network of community partnerships to keep our nation safe.”

One man, Mohamed Ahmed, is also doing his part in the counter-messaging effort, offering an alternative view of what really happens when someone joins a jihadist group. Based in Minneapolis, Ahmed sees the main problem as a public relations loophole that recruiters are exploiting to gain access to Somali young men. I spoke with him about his initiative and what can be done about terrorist recruiters:

“People don’t know how to talk to Muslims,” he said. “In America here, there’s a separation between church and state. Someone has to bridge the gap. I saw an opportunity there.”

Ahmed sees a failure by the United States government to adequately counter violent extremist propaganda targeting Muslim communities in America. This PR “gap” as he calls it is what terrorists can exploit. Describing himself as a “blue collar worker” and father of four, Ahmed started a company called Wareya, which puts out culturally relevant (and sometimes humorous) animated videos via the website Average Mohamed. The videos are aimed at the 8-to-16-year-old age group, warning about listening to the propaganda that jihadists spew. Said Ahmed:

“I want to put out 12-24 messages in the kids minds before a recruiter comes to them. I want to make their job very difficult. My job is a long-term program. Whenever I can save some money I put it towards the videos. Nine out of ten kids did not know suicide bombing is not Islamic theology.”

“They will kill 100,000, and they will recruit another 100,000,” said Ahmed. “It’s become a revolution now, no longer terrorism. We need today’s tools for today’s battles.”

According to him, indoctrination begins in the United States and full radicalization happens once the recruits arrive in the terrorist camps. They are indoctrinated first for approximately six months and then sent off to fight.

What is unclear is just who the recruiters are and how they are gaining access to potential recruits. But what could possibly make becoming a jihadist and facing death attractive? A possible vulnerability for a would-be recruit in Minnesota is probably the same ingredient that would stir British Pakistanis to fight in Kashmir or even the Tsarnaev brothers who bombed the Boston Marathon: alienation. In a statement before the House Committee on Homeland Security earlier this year, my fellow Security Debrief contributor Dr. Erroll Southers cited alienation as one of three components that can lead an individual down a path to terrorism. (The other noted components are a legitimizing ideology and an enabling environment.)

Whereas the government cannot produce counter-messaging of a religious ideological nature, recruiters might be tapping into a deep-seeded need for identity and belonging. For Somali young men, not quite fitting into the American mold while at the same time being alienated from their ethnic culture, allows for recruiters to be able to present the “legitimizing ideology” that lures them in.

“The problem with fighting extremism is that we’ve tried everyone’s solutions but the Muslim solutions to achieve the objective of countering this ideology,” said Ahmed, underscoring the significance of using religious undertones in counter-messaging.

The third component, an “enabling environment,” is perhaps where there is the greatest room for leverage through local means and where Ahmed is seeking to assert influence. As written about previously on Security Debrief, community resilience (i.e., an adaptive, knowledge-based form of counter-terrorism) keeps one step ahead of terrorist recruitment efforts.

]]>http://securitydebrief.com/2014/09/29/countering-al-shabaab-recruitment-in-minnestoa/feed/0One Year After Westgate Terrorist Attackhttp://securitydebrief.com/2014/09/17/one-year-after-westgate-terrorist-attack/
http://securitydebrief.com/2014/09/17/one-year-after-westgate-terrorist-attack/#commentsWed, 17 Sep 2014 14:42:27 +0000http://securitydebrief.com/?p=15275Sunday, September 21, marks the one-year anniversary of the Nairobi Westgate Attack that rocked the East African capital of Kenya. The brutal terrorist and hostage attempt carried out by al-Shabaab terrorists killed 65 people, and the attack included a standoff that lasted four days. Now, one year later, what was left of the upscale Westgate shopping mall is being rebuilt along with the lives of those who lost loved ones.

For Kenyans, justice is hard to pin down. Since last year’s attack, instability has been disturbingly on the rise. Kenyans previously felt the blow of terrorism in 1998 after the al Qaeda bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi that claimed 213 lives. Now, more than 15 years later, there is even more resolve to stamp out a new threat.

Kenya has turned a corner in the global battle against terrorism, entering a period in history where terrorist acts are sadly becoming more commonplace and disruptive. Kenyan determination to combat these cowardly acts, however, is at an all-time high. And with it, hard questions are being lobbied against the Kenyan government about its countermeasures. So far, President Uhuru Kenyatta has sought international assistance from the United States in securing the porous Kenya-Somalia border, but his domestic response has been far more muddled, at times focusing more on political opponents than the militant group. In addition, the president-promised official Commission of Inquiry to look into the Westgate Attack has yet to be formed.

There are similar lessons here for the United States and Kenya. Ironically, both countries are now key recruiting grounds for al-Shabaab. Due diligence by the Kenyan government in hunting the homegrown threat reveals a sensitive fault line over respecting innocent Muslim citizens and blocking a very real and relatively easy mobilization effort by terrorists. That is, how to protect the freedoms of Somali citizens while at the same time stopping the marginalized Islamic Kenyan youth that might be sympathetic to al-Shabaab from being radicalized and trained internally. Analyst Paul Hidalgo notes how strategically uncomplicated it has been for the group to infiltrate key Kenyan towns, while the Kenyan government’s response has proved “self-defeating” by creating even more disenfranchisement among Muslims, particularly Somali Kenyans.

Since the Westgate Attack, al-Shabaab has taken credit for deadly consecutive raids in the small coastal town of Mpeketoni in Kenya between June 15 and June 17 this year. President Kenyatta, however, asserted that the attacks were “politically motivated ethnic violence” by local networks. The National intelligence Service (NIS) and Interior Cabinet Secretary Joseph Ole Lenku have been accused of being slow to action and ignoring key intelligence of threats released by the terrorist group. Kenyan intelligence and police have at times struggled to contain the threat, focusing more on political wrangling and neglecting intelligence, resulting in the resignation of NIS head Michael Gichangi. His successor, Major-General Philip Wachira, holds promise, resolving to retrain intelligent agents.

“The operation occurred south of Mogadishu, located in south-central Somalia, and it did result in the destruction of that vehicle. I think it’s important to remind everybody that in September 2013, Godane publicly claimed Al-Shabaab was responsible for the Westgate Mall attack, which killed and injured dozens in Nairobi.” Kirby highlighted US resolve to “dismantle Al-Shabaab and other terrorist groups who threaten U.S. interests, as well as the interests of our allies and our partner nations.”

The world is now witnessing what a radicalized Islamic state (i.e., ISIS), funded and led by terrorists, would look like. Al-Shabaab on the other hand is not particularly interested in global jihad, making it an easier target to dissolve. The death of al-Shabaab head Godane leaves behind a weakened network; however, they are not to be underestimated. A counter strategy to the recruitment of freshly radicalized militants must move to the forefront of domestic and international counter-terrorism policy for both the United States and Kenya. In Kenya, military action must be accompanied by engagement of disenfranchised Somali populations and more dialogue among leaders and youth.

Less then a month ago, a second massive tragedy struck Malaysia Airlines: flight MH17 was shot down after the earlier disappearance of MH370 in March of this year. Both airliners were popular B777 widebody, international aircraft. The first, a mysterious situation, which may never be fully resolved, and the second, an act of criminal murder. Of the second, we may never know the identity of the perpetrators. We do know they used a sophisticated modern anti-aircraft missile system supplied by (or on loan from) Russia and either operated by (or at least supervised by) well-trained Russian military (or ex-military) personnel. Was MH17 targeted specifically, an indiscriminate act of violence, or a major tactical error with global consequences? Is this a new global threat that should keep us up at night?

Aviation industries and the flying public are definitely at risk but far less likely now from an event similar to the tragedy over Ukraine. The shoot down of MH17 is tragic and inexcusable. That said, in all likelihood, it was a black swan event – high impact, impossible-to-predict, and exceedingly rare. Western governments have been reticent to share these types of high-altitude anti-aircraft systems with client states or surrogates, for good reason. During the Soviet war in Afghanistan, the United States provided Stingers (shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles) to the Mujahedeen, which turned the tide of war against the Soviet Union. Subsequently, the West scrambled to retrieve those very weapons before they could be used against civilian aircraft. Stingers, unlike the system used to shoot down MH17, can only strike aircraft at altitudes up to about 14,000 feet. The Russian SA-11 Buk system used in the Ukraine can strike up to and above 70,000 feet, well beyond maximum altitude of all civilian aircraft.

Sent from Russia, and ostensibly under control of militia separatists, the Buk was used to intentionally (or unintentionally) kill innocent passengers on an aircraft flying at 33,000 feet on a heavily used air-transit route. Given the outrage and response of the United States and Europe to Russia over this event, it is unlikely they will entrust militant groups with these weapon systems in the future. The MH17 tragedy has likely made air travel more secure (not less) from this particular threat.

In reaction to the MH17 shoot down, many pundits have advocated for robust defensive countermeasures being installed on commercial airliners. This is an unrealistic and counter-productive response. No systems currently exist that can protect large vulnerable commercial airliners from Buk-like weapon systems. What does exist (and is far more realistic and productive) is a robust capability to assess new and emerging threats and risks.

That said, the airline industry matured around a culture of safety and operational excellence, not security threat analysis. This was articulated in the founding documents of the airline industry with the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention) December 7, 1944: Whereas … its abuse can become a threat to the general security… upon which the peace of the world depends.

Conversely, the Intelligence Community developed robust threat and risk analytical practices with little expertise or understanding of commercial airline operations. Today’s emerging threats are less from super missile systems controlled by highly trained personnel and more from the conflicts raging at ground level when airliners overfly the region. Anti-aircraft weapons in the hands of failing states (Syria, Iraq, Libya) and extremist groups (Islamic State of Syria and the Levant (ISIL), Hamas, others) can not reach the altitude of transiting airliners unless those airlines suffer a mechanical malfunction that forces them to make an emergency landing at the nearest “suitable” airfield. Radically shifting the paradigm to an undesirable outcome.

Had the responsible air operations experts been in open discussion with the risk analysis experts, this type of situation might have been avoided by managing the route planning to avoid conflict zones. This process should be empowered and taken well in advance, not when pilots and flight dispatchers are doing their final review for the flight. Global geopolitical situations are not in their area of expertise or the forefront of planning considerations. However, through collaboration, all these professionals may merge their knowledge to produce a more holistic operational plan.

Today’s major risk to aviation and the global community may more likely be a new disease vector moving at the speed of air travel around the world. Again, the airline professionals are not expert on disease monitoring and prevention. Yet, they may be responsible for inadvertently spreading or preventing an epidemic. Biosurviellance medical professionals understand how to forecast and monitor outbreaks. Collaboration with the airline industry may mitigate the global spread of disease.

Other affiliated industries are also stakeholders in preventing the spread of disease that may greatly impact their businesses. The massive luxury hotel and convention centers could be devastated with the introduction of a virulent contagion into a global population gathered at one venue. A case study might be the renowned Bellevue-Stratford Hotel in Philadelphia in July 1976 with the outbreak of Legionnaires’ Disease. Some 182 people were infected, 29 died, and by November of that year, the hotel was closed down. It was three years and a massive renovation later before the property re-opened under new ownership. This could just as easily happen to a convention facility or cruise ship today after air travelers come together in close contact, spreading an infectious disease.

Once again referencing the principals upon which the airline industry was established at the Chicago Convention and applying them to the larger community: Therefore… governments having agreed on certain principles and arrangements in order that international civil aviation may be developed in a safe and orderly manner and that international air transport services may be established on the basis of equality of opportunity and operated soundly and economically.

The ongoing risks extend beyond aviation and are not principally criminal actions by lawless thugs, although anomalies will always happen. Rather, much of the risks are things we may model, evaluate, predict and hopefully mitigate. Over the past 70 years, we have built the safest transportation system in history; the most dangerous part of air travel is still the drive to the airport. Collaboration is the key to enabling information sharing between experts from aviation operations, intelligence, biosurviellance and others in concert with the risk analysis experts of the insurance industry creating situational awareness on where and when we fly and whom we transport on a continuing basis.

Kevin McCarthy, a recognized aviation operations and security expert, is COO of MoonRaker Aviation Services, Inc., a company providing total security awareness and protection for corporations throughout their operating environment, air and land.